Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Securing a SoC is Not Easy

pandoralive.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#51

Post by cordite »

fit2rule wrote: post #32
ekianjo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair the Pandora still exists and is still produced (while you are right that it suffered huge delays in the first place linked to supply but also to manufacturing). As for the ICP2, I believe it was not just a supply issue but a lack a coordination (the design was still being discussed several months after funding).

Actually, the iCP2 died because of a total failure of its management to get things sorted out. The drama around Mr. Rothwell and his hijinks is bound to be a made-for-TV movie one of these days .. assuming that EvilDragon makes it with the Pyra, and gets some fame/fortune in the next project. (Disclaimer: I'm an OP fan, a first-batch'er, and avid supporter of everything that EvilDragon and his motley crew are getting…

Nice to meet you, I am as well. Craig is quite a character.

I think the failure also comes from changing the design mid process.

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#52

Post by ekianjo »

KRuchan wrote: post #22
ekianjo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind, contact me through the form on Pandoralive ( http://pandoralive.info/?page_id=2 ) and I'll get in touch with you personally. Not sure if it's not too late for this particular device, but it's for sure not the last project of that kind so it wouldn't hurt to start establishing a relationship. :)

Done.

Thanks :)

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#53

Post by joezydeco »

brigade wrote: post #23
petermonsson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NDAs are firmly integrated in the embedded industry. If you could get your hands on any other SoC, you would need to sign an NDA as well. For example Tegra documentation needs an NDA too.

Freescale and TI tend to be good about providing heaps of documentation without requiring any NDA. Unfortunately, they're pretty alone in that regard.

I tend to think the only reason TI and Freescale have good documentation is because they've been in the market a lot longer than the others and have had time to mature the work. TI had early wins with Nokia and Freescale has been in the automotive market and had some early multimedia work like the Toshiba Gigabeat (aka Zune 1).

Providing a complete doc set for these chips runs well above 10,000 pages. I recently got to evaluate a Marvell chipset and...um...let's say it wasn't pretty.

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#54

Post by kabdib »

ams6110 wrote: post #9
ekianjo wrote: post #3

OK, following the comment below, the post is about the difficulties of sourcing a SoC (system-on-chip such as the ARM processors you find in most mobile devices out there) for a relatively small hardware project led by a small company. While we all get the impression that SoCs are so common that you can buy them from anywhere, the actual supply of these parts is an issue if you are not sourcing tons of them at the sa…

Sourcing is a better word than "securing" though the title is accurately quoted. I thought it was going to be security related.

Making a SoC secure is hard, too :-)

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#55

Post by ChuckMcM »

zimbatm wrote: post #35
ChuckMcM wrote: post #24

This is, I believe, the only thing that has kept Intel in the game. Had someone had some foresight to go "all in" with the open source bit they could retake the old IBM PC spot (I'm talking about the one the PC in 1981 took away from CP/M machines, not the current spot). People who build appliances won't care but people who build computers will.

I get what you mean but selling 1000 units is hardly a game changer :p

You both correct and very very wrong at the same time. What history has shown in the technology world is that the person making "1000 units" is changing the game, just the game doesn't know it yet.

The folks who embrace selling in small quantities to the individual developers see a huge diversity in designs that are built with their tech, that trains up the tech provider on the strong and weak points of the technology and often helps them produce easier to implement solutions. The diversity of designs trains the consumers on possibilities which they may not be considering. When they connect, as they did with putting a microprocessor into a "home" computer, the results can be stunning.

So you don't sell 1000 units because you think this guy is going change the world, you sell them in 1000 unit quantities to a bunch of guys and gals because one of them may change the world in a way you haven't foreseen, and if they do, you will benefit hugely from being the tech they used.

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#56

Post by protopete »

KRuchan wrote: post #19
ekianjo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the feedback! I believe ED (the one who shared his experiences from the article) did contact Qualcomm but had difficulty securing small quantities as well from them. He probably forgot to mention it this time. However, if you think that it would still be possible and if you have commercial contacts within Qualcomm, I'd be happy to put you in touch with him.

Yes, would be happy to talk with your colleague and point him to the right contacts. I am at the San Diego headquarters.

I too would be interested in sourcing Qualcomm SoCs in small quantities. If you don't mind, please drop a note Attn:Pete at http://sensoray.com/support/receiveinfo.htm

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#57

Post by userbinator »

Narishma wrote: post #49
userbinator wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have the feeling that the same thing would happen if Intel decided to open up the details on their Atom SoC platforms. They're a bit like a neutered PC from what I understand, so it's a lot easier to port existing OSs to them, but without technical docs it's still hard.

What technical details are missing? I was under the impression that Intel has the most open SoCs around. The only thing I can think of is the PowerVR GPUs in some of their older chips, but those aren't theirs to open, and they stopped using them in recent SoCs in favor of their own GPUs.

Tried finding a public datasheet for e.g. Atom Z2460?

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#59

Post by ChuckMcM »

userbinator wrote: post #57
Narishma wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What technical details are missing? I was under the impression that Intel has the most open SoCs around. The only thing I can think of is the PowerVR GPUs in some of their older chips, but those aren't theirs to open, and they stopped using them in recent SoCs in favor of their own GPUs.

Tried finding a public datasheet for e.g. Atom Z2460?

Hmm, this http://ark.intel.com/products/70098/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z24... looks pretty shallow. I wonder if there is a technical reference manual hiding somewhere on the site.

Re: Securing a SoC is Not Easy

#60

Post by dynode »

voltagex_ wrote: post #6

The situation for hobbyists getting SoCs is terrible - I've got a MiiPC at home that won't be getting much use because Marvell won't release any documentation on it without an NDA

Which is why it drives me nuts when people refer to the Raspberry Pi as "open hardware". You can't get even close to the datasheet without an NDA.
Post reply on HN